In a perfect World ...
06 April 2008 08:17 Filed in: Standards
… we would only have one Office format standard, one EDI standard, one paper format standard, etc.
But we are not in a perfect world. I grow up learning the metric system only to end up with having to use both. I know it’s my own fault for leaving Germany. There is a saying that the good news about standards is that we have so many to choose from. I am sure that many of you have hear about the battle of the Office format standards. Actually it was more of a war.
On one side we had (still have) the Open Document Format (ODF) troops let by IBM and Sun and on the other side the much hated Microsoft corporation putting forward their Open Office XML (OOXML).
I have been a silent bystander since I could care less who would win this battle. What both side ignored where what is it the users really want. In my case all I want is a format that is universally in use and is implemented in those office application I am using now, have used before and may use in the future. That eliminates both formats the battle was about, ODF and OOXML, since all my old documents I have archived are either in PDF or the binary MS Office formats (DOC, XLS or PPT). The office applications I used most are not MS Office’s Word, Excel or Powerpoint, but Pages, Numbers and Keynote. They have no problem opening any of my older documents, preserving the original format and layout, that I created using past versions of MS Office, Describe, WordPerfect, StarOffice and WordStar. The reason they do that is that all of them incorporated the de facto MS binary formats. As I see it MS binary formats will stick around for a long time. Maybe over time one of those new XML based formats will gain the upper hand but only if the applications also continue to support the older binary MS formats for the simple reason users will not fast time to convert their archived documents to a newer format.
Now back to the office format battle that started last year when ECMA first approached ISO/IEC JTC1 to fast-track its XML Office format as an ISO/IEC Standard. MS had approached ECMA earlier to fast-tracked its OOXML specification to become an ECMA standard. Both Sun and IBM lead the charge to mobilize the opposition by contacting JTC1 national member organizations in their effort for them to vote against the fast track. Bloggers such as Bob Sutor were filling their blogs with negative information almost daily. IBM even help composite the negative response template for national standards bodies to use. The efforts paid of and the initial vote failed last September.
Microsoft having learned from Sun and IBM did its part during the ballot resolution phase by directly working with those that opposed the fast track to gain their support. Interesting enough, the opposition immediately call foul! Since it was MS doing what they had done themselves it suddenly was no longer consider fair play. Having been around international standards for almost 25 years I found this rather interesting. I recall when IBM was the bad guy doing what it now accused MS was doing. One argument put forward by IBM and Bob Sutor was that there should be only one Office format standard, that being ODF since it already was an ISO standard. I recall that in 18990 the international community was trying to convince the US (X12) that there should only be a single EDI standard, UN/EDIFACT, whose syntax was an ISO standard. IBM USA was a key objector stating that X12 there long before and should continue to be used and that there was nothing wrong with two EDI standards since it was better then having three, four or more. BTW, IBM’s US position was not supported by its other office across the globe since many active EDIFACT contributors were from IBM international offices.
One point that did surface is what many of us have been saying for some time, the old de jure standards process needs to catch up with time. The fact that ODF became an ISO standard without ISO having made any effort to find out if there were other efforts or de facto standards competing with the fast track request just asked for the type of conflict that we just witnessed. There should be no first-comer approach to fast track their specifications as ISO standards without ensuring that all players are involved.
There are other process issues, such as openness and transparency as well as true open participation which need to be addressed if ISO and IEC want to stay in business. However, since they same issues have been there for both the ODF and OOXML fast track, using them now to blame ISO for failing to prevent ECMA/MS to get their OOXML format approved as ISO standard just shows what sore loser the other side really is.
I suggest that both side put aside their differences and start collaborating to work towards a single Office format standards if that really is their intention from the start.
But we are not in a perfect world. I grow up learning the metric system only to end up with having to use both. I know it’s my own fault for leaving Germany. There is a saying that the good news about standards is that we have so many to choose from. I am sure that many of you have hear about the battle of the Office format standards. Actually it was more of a war.
On one side we had (still have) the Open Document Format (ODF) troops let by IBM and Sun and on the other side the much hated Microsoft corporation putting forward their Open Office XML (OOXML).
I have been a silent bystander since I could care less who would win this battle. What both side ignored where what is it the users really want. In my case all I want is a format that is universally in use and is implemented in those office application I am using now, have used before and may use in the future. That eliminates both formats the battle was about, ODF and OOXML, since all my old documents I have archived are either in PDF or the binary MS Office formats (DOC, XLS or PPT). The office applications I used most are not MS Office’s Word, Excel or Powerpoint, but Pages, Numbers and Keynote. They have no problem opening any of my older documents, preserving the original format and layout, that I created using past versions of MS Office, Describe, WordPerfect, StarOffice and WordStar. The reason they do that is that all of them incorporated the de facto MS binary formats. As I see it MS binary formats will stick around for a long time. Maybe over time one of those new XML based formats will gain the upper hand but only if the applications also continue to support the older binary MS formats for the simple reason users will not fast time to convert their archived documents to a newer format.
Now back to the office format battle that started last year when ECMA first approached ISO/IEC JTC1 to fast-track its XML Office format as an ISO/IEC Standard. MS had approached ECMA earlier to fast-tracked its OOXML specification to become an ECMA standard. Both Sun and IBM lead the charge to mobilize the opposition by contacting JTC1 national member organizations in their effort for them to vote against the fast track. Bloggers such as Bob Sutor were filling their blogs with negative information almost daily. IBM even help composite the negative response template for national standards bodies to use. The efforts paid of and the initial vote failed last September.
Microsoft having learned from Sun and IBM did its part during the ballot resolution phase by directly working with those that opposed the fast track to gain their support. Interesting enough, the opposition immediately call foul! Since it was MS doing what they had done themselves it suddenly was no longer consider fair play. Having been around international standards for almost 25 years I found this rather interesting. I recall when IBM was the bad guy doing what it now accused MS was doing. One argument put forward by IBM and Bob Sutor was that there should be only one Office format standard, that being ODF since it already was an ISO standard. I recall that in 18990 the international community was trying to convince the US (X12) that there should only be a single EDI standard, UN/EDIFACT, whose syntax was an ISO standard. IBM USA was a key objector stating that X12 there long before and should continue to be used and that there was nothing wrong with two EDI standards since it was better then having three, four or more. BTW, IBM’s US position was not supported by its other office across the globe since many active EDIFACT contributors were from IBM international offices.
One point that did surface is what many of us have been saying for some time, the old de jure standards process needs to catch up with time. The fact that ODF became an ISO standard without ISO having made any effort to find out if there were other efforts or de facto standards competing with the fast track request just asked for the type of conflict that we just witnessed. There should be no first-comer approach to fast track their specifications as ISO standards without ensuring that all players are involved.
There are other process issues, such as openness and transparency as well as true open participation which need to be addressed if ISO and IEC want to stay in business. However, since they same issues have been there for both the ODF and OOXML fast track, using them now to blame ISO for failing to prevent ECMA/MS to get their OOXML format approved as ISO standard just shows what sore loser the other side really is.
I suggest that both side put aside their differences and start collaborating to work towards a single Office format standards if that really is their intention from the start.
0 Comments
